Originally posted by Odium
Freedom_for_sum, if I was a leader of a Nation I do not see it being attacked in such a way. Primarily because I would not have such a policy as to
turn millions of people World over against me through hypocritical policy.

There is no nation in the world imune to hatred of from another nation. There are people who hate the UK for simply being free. After all, if you like
humor or dancing or fun etc; this is good enough reason to be hated:

Khomeini (1986), : "Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship
and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There
can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

Also, there are millions of people who believe this:

Asked what he would say to the loved ones of the 202 people killed in the October 2002 Bali nightclub explosions, Abu Bakar Bashir, the al-Qaeda-tied
leader of Indonesia's radical Jemaah Islamiyah, replied, "My message to the families is: Please convert to Islam as soon as possible."

So, the hatred will always be there. But despite this, as what you perceive is the most hated nation in the world; why do so many people want to come
here? Why do they go to school here? Why do they want to emmigrate here??

Originally posted by Odium
Also, Freedom_for_Sum, I'm classed as a conservative through my belief, I am just an economic liberal and social conservative.

Well; that explains our fundamental problem Odium: We are on opposite ends of the spectrum as I am Socially liberal and fiscally
conservative; which means I believe in the right for gays to marry and a woman's choice to abort her fetus; but don't like big government; I
always vote for less taxes, and don't like all the welfare handouts people get from the government teat as I, as a taxpayer, must pay for that.

I'm having difficulty getting my head around "economic liberal" and "social conservative." Does this mean you believe in large scale welfare
(socialism) but that economic policies should be in place to prevent people from being on welfare?

Also, for those who are interested look at UN General Assembly Resolution 181, read the full text of it. If this is not binding than the State of
Israel doesn't legally exist and still belongs to the British and the French. If it is legal than Israel is in breech of a UN Resolution.

Odium,

there are few nations of the world that can claim legitimacy like Israel.

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel, to take effect at midnight that
night.

The U.S. recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the Jewish state within minutes

The Soviet Union granted de jure recognition almost immediately - along with Guatemala, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Uruguay, and Yugoslavia within the next five days.

Between January 1, 1949 and May 11. 1949, Israel was recognised by 32 States, in addition to the 20 that had accorded its recognition prior to
December 31, 1948.

On May 11, 1949, Israel officially joined the United Nations as a full member - with all the rights and privileges of our counterpart members
within the United Nations.

Freedom_for_sum, there are millions of people [Christian's] who believe foolish things as well. There are millions of Muslims who do not believe what
you stated - a good example is Turkey. Especailly if you travel from the East to the West, you will see the massive divide that Nation has on such
issues as fun, alcohol, etc. It really is worth the trip if you ever can.

Also many people go to Saudi Arabia to work, to go to school - in fact members of this forum have been. Does that many Saudi Arabia a nice nation? A
good Nation?

You also seem to forget what a Conservative is, just because I hold my own view doesn't mean I wish to force it onto another. As for my "Liberal"
view on the economy, I like the system the Swedish have. Lower taxation on the poor means less people on welfare. Actually...everyone pays lower over
there than they do in the U.K. or even in the U.S...but that's a while nother ATSNN story.

Originally posted by Odium
Freedom_for_sum, there are millions of people [Christian's] who believe foolish things as well. There are millions of Muslims who do not believe what
you stated - a good example is Turkey. Especailly if you travel from the East to the West, you will see the massive divide that Nation has on such
issues as fun, alcohol, etc. It really is worth the trip if you ever can.

I'm curious to know what "millions of Christians" believe that is foolish.
I agree that there are "millions of Muslims who do not believe "what (I stated)". But there are millions of Mulsims who DO believe what I stated
and I perceive them to be very dangerous as it is this "extreme," perhaps literal interpretation of Islam that is the fastest growing religion in
the world right now.

BTW: Why aren't those "millions of Muslims" who don't believe as I say rise up and denounce these "extremists" for hijacking their religion? I
guarantee you there would be millions of christians shouting in the streets and the media protecting the image of their faith if the roles were
reversed. The so-called "moderate" Muslims have been pitifully silent. Instead, there are organizations such as CAIR who, instead of answering tough
questions about Islam, they label those, like me, who ask those questions as Islamophobes. They also spealk out of both sides of their mouths when
describing these "extremists."

Sorry--off topic again.

I've been to Turkey and realise the relative secular nature their socio/pilitical system is. It wasn't always that way. Regardless, it is now, but
if you do a little research, there is a growing faction of people who wish to return to the "dark ages" of their Islamic history.

Look at the segmentation of Christianity in itself, only one of those groups [if any] can be correct. It is highly doubtful all of them can believe in
the right God/Religion, however look at the policy of people like the K.K.K. who viewed themselves as Christians and had thousands of members at one
point.

However one of the best examples of this is the different view points on hell, compaired to the earlier Jewish Religion. They have re-written "hell"
and in fact created it to be something it is not and something which changes depending on each version of Christianity. Another good example of it is
those Priests who set up "stage shows" where they "heal" people and get "donations" so they can keep on helping people. However, not one of them
has ever displayed any proof that they can really heal people. Look at Prophet Yahweh, list can go on of the millions of people who believe things
which to me are highly foolish.

Freedom_For_Sum, as I have displayed on this forum before as have many other people, Muslim's have spoken out against the "Extreme" fringe of their
Religion but they get sick of it. In the words of the Chairman of the British Council of Muslims, "Without the media supporting us and displaying our
message it falls on deaf ears." and it is so true. They say it, time and time again for example the group; Muslims Against Terrorism [MIT] however
most people have never even heard of them.

As for people wishing to go back to the "Dark Ages" we have people in the U.K. who believe black people are inferior to them, that slavery is fine,
we have people in the United States who want to go back to having slaves, etc, etc. You have people who will agree with almost anything. Neo-Nazi for
example, so this is not only an Islamic trend.

I'm willing at this point to say "let's see what history show us 10 years from now" when the Israelis and Palestinians are still going at it; when
all that's left of Iran is a glass bowl (as a result of a retaliatory attack), Syria is the Iraq of today, and the slow Islamisation of Europe
continues to erode individual freedoms due to political correctness and Muslim sensitivity. Of course, the common thread being Islam

The joint Declaration of Principles on August 19, 1993 created a framework for areas
of negotiation. According to the agreements, major fundamental and controversial issues, such as Jerusalem, would be deferred to the permanent status
negotiations.

To view a stunning collection of Jerusalem maps visit the Jewish National Library.

Their collection dates from as early as about 1200 up until the first decades of the 20th century. Click on box 4, and you can view
over 250 maps in order of date of publication. Zoom into any one of them with a magnification that allows you to read the original
detailed notes embellishing them.

Problem is, the basis of giving an "area" of "land" back to its "original" people is a joke to me. I do not see why Jewish people should have
been given it back to them, when there are so many people still being forced off of their home-lands in South America, China and Africa. However this
again comes back to my view that if a Government supports such an action they have to do it for all and not for one...

So what do you think is the best plan to change "Islamic/Iranian" attitudes to Israel than Riwka?

Originally posted by infinite
You have yet to NAME a right-winged Christian terrorist organization in the US.

what the HELL is the Klu Klux Klan then?

there is "The Order" and "Christian Identity" aswell,

plus the US Republican Party

Well, I did advise him of those groups when he asked and he promptly went a bit quiet about the issue.

Your qustion got lost in the forest of posts.

The KKK is NOT a christian organization. Nor are white supremists or WAR. They are SEPARATISTS!! Please show where in Christianity it advocates the
lynching of people because they are black?? Or Jews?? ETC??? They don't spout their rhetoric in the name of God or Christianity. They spout their
rhetoric because they are bigoted ignoramouses!!! This is the same as the Timoth McVeigh issue; who murdered not because of his religion, but because
he hated the government.

From Zappafan:I'd like to add here that most of what is called "Right Wing" are those right smack dab in the middle. The Democrats have been taken
over by "Progressives", (I've been watching it happen for 40 years) which simply means Socialists and Marxists and, in fact, are supported by the
Communist Party of the US of A. Therefore, the left is now so far left that those in the middle SEEM like they are to the right.
On another note, one has to remember that "John Doe" number two, who was seen with McVeigh the morning of the OK City Bombing (and numerous other
times) is Alsein Al Husseini, who is/was a low-level associate in Saddams army.
By their very beliefs, the KKK, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the UCLA and all those "special" groups are practicing "Cultural Marxism". Which
means dividing the people and breaking down the culture in America. Those are all on the LEFT.

Odium: From just a few seconds perusing a few of the pages you gave links to, there are so many errors it is difficult to use them for any facts
whatsoever. As soon as I read that America is a "Democracy" I didn't want to go further; but I did. However, I must go to work and cannot take the
time right now to refute so much of what I found wrong. I will say this: We do not live in a Democracy, and should never hope to, and you should be
aware that over the past 50 years most of the Left are trying to make the U.S. a Democracy, which is not a good thing.

Here's some news for 'ya: Communism cannot grow and thrive unless a Democracy is in place. America is getting close to becoming a Socialist state.
Every Social program we have is, for one, un-Constitutional and two, having the most harm on our economy. Everyone makes use of the numbers of our
National Debt, which do sound alarming, unless one looks and sees that it is right around 4% of our GDP, which is no big deal. Our biggest problem
with the debt comes from the Socialist, Marxist "Nanny-state" programs, like WIC, Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now
the Prescription Drug program, the cost of which will surpass much of those mentioned previously.

America is now going by 5 of Karl Marx's planks, which I'll provide later, unless you'd like to do the homework yourself.

Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, ous Constitution does not allow treaties with "groups" like the UN, only with countries. 85% of
those in the UN are nothing but tyrants and dictators posing as statesmen. The world would be a better place if one of the planes had hit the UN
building.

Actually, by definition it is a democracy. Many people [as I have pointed out on here] forget that a Republican Democracy, just like you can have
Direct Democracy, Socialist Democracies and so on and so fourth. It is just a "way" of shortening it down.

In fact it would take hundreds of words to define the U.S. Government's system and the role the people have, as some states have a system of direct
democracy in place already. So you would have to take it state by state and also then on a National level.

Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or
referenda, open to all or most citizens.

1. Abolition of private property.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. A central bank.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. State ownership of the means of production
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.(1)
Government Control of education.

Karl Marx's ten planks have all been put into American Society in one way or another. It just boils down to if you see it there or not. As for
blaming it on "The Left" and "Socialism", well that's a joke. Look at where most the money is going...it isn't into a "Social System" so
blaming them for the debt is a joke. Even if you removed those systems you would still be going into debt.

Originally posted by Odium
Problem is, the basis of giving an "area" of "land" back to its "original" people is a joke to me. I do not see why Jewish people should have
been given it back to them, when there are so many people still being forced off of their home-lands in South America, China and Africa. However this
again comes back to my view that if a Government supports such an action they have to do it for all and not for one...
.........

The problem is Odium that Israel fought and won their territories, not only by mandates of the UN, but by military might. They won fair and square
the lands they got. I also think it was a really bad decision to give some of the land back to the PLA.

1. Abolition of private property.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. A central bank.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. State ownership of the means of production
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.(1)
Government Control of education.

Karl Marx's ten planks have all been put into American Society in one way or another. It just boils down to if you see it there or not.
..............

Odium, you are so far from the truth it is not even funny.

1.There is no abolition of private property in the US....

2.Taxes have been part of Capitalist countries before Marx wrote it in his manifesto....

3.People in the US inherit things from their relatives all the time Odium...

4.There is no confiscation of the property of immigrants, unless they break certain laws, and that goes for everyone not just immigrants...

5.There is not just one central bank in the US...

6.The means of communications are not centralized, or owned by the State....

7.The state does not own the means of production...

8.There is no equal liability of all to labor. Children are not made to do manual labor like what happens in communist countries...

9.If you go from town to town you will notice the differences between the towns and cities in the US, so there is no "abolition of distinction
between towns and country"....

10.And last but no least, was Marx the first one to think, or even to set up a free public school system?....

I tell you, some people are really working hard in trying to change history to fufill their agendas....

Only 29 dead? I don't think so. Thats is the death toll from one attack, in Omagh, which was actually a splinter group (the Real IRA).

The MIPT is a reputable organization. The difference in numbers may be due to the "splintering" of groups each having its own totals. In any case, I
sent them an email asking this very question. And when they reply, I will post it here.

Well; I don't know if Stumason still lurks here. But, as I promised, Here is the email exchange between MIPT and me:

While looking through your site I brought up this link: www.tkb.org...#

Scrolling down, I noticed the IRA numbers:

Incidents: 84

Injuries: 139

Fatalities: 29

These number seem very small and I offer this link that provides different statistics: www.inac.org...

Scrolling down, they state:

The Irish Republican Army

“According to the Independent Research group, the IRA are responsible for 1,757 killings, broken down into several categories: Crown Forces,
Loyalist Military and Political Activists, Civilian Accidents, Operations in Britain, Sectarian, and other.”

Could you please let me know why these numbers are vastly different?

Thank You;

Xxx Xxxxx

Their response:

Dear Mr. Xxxxx,

Thank you for your feedback to MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base (www.TKB.org). In response to your inquiry regarding the low numbers of killings by the
IRA reported on TKB.org, we remind you that RAND did not include a vast number of incidents until 1998 because they were considered domestic, and
these therefore are not included in the casualty counts. Only incidents considered International were included prior to 1998.

We encourage you to continue to submit feedback to www.TKB.org – feedback is a critical part of making TKB a valuable resource for terrorism
researchers. Thank you again for your interest in improving MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base.

MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base

c/o DFI International

1-800-991-4852

TKBSupport@tkb.org

Ther's your answer: They were only including international terrorism. Therefore, I stand by my previous assertion that Islam is the root
ideology behind MOST terrorism committed globally today!

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sumTher's your answer: They were only including international terrorism. Therefore, I stand by my previous assertion that Islam is the root
ideology behind MOST terrorism committed globally today!

Freedom_for_sum, you are still wrong with your assertion. Islam has nothing to do with what is termed "Islamic terrorism". If a Rabbi robbed a bank
and said God made me do it would we term it a "Jewish bank robbery" or "a robbery condoned by Judaism"? Of course we wouldnt, just because these
scum-bag terrorists are saying that Allah is on their side and they are doing it for Islam doesnt mean squat.

When people then start to blame Islam as a whole or all muslims for this problem we start getting into stereotyping and blaming the whole for the
actions of a few. What are your reasons for trying to class this terrorism as being Islamic in origin? Just because they say they are doing it for
Islam is not enough.

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing in the name of God. Was that Christian terrorism?

Originally posted by subz
What are your reasons for trying to class this terrorism as being Islamic in origin? Just because they say they are doing it for Islam is not
enough.

There are millions of Muslims who subscribe to the "Wahabi", or so-called "extremist" ideas of Islam. it is not a "tiny minority" or just a
"few." All it takes is just little more brain-washing and Quranic beating to go from point A to Point C (Murder). Have you read the Qur'an? Those
so-called extremists are really just doing what the Qur'an says.

Originally posted by subz
Timothy McVeigh was a Christian who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing in the name of God. Was that Christian terrorism?

It is really exhausting repeating myself. But if that's what it takes.......McVeigh DID NOT blow up that building in the name of God. He NEVER
invoked his religion or God as reasons for murdering those people. He did it because he hated the government and to avenge the manner in which
the FBI took down the Branch Davidians. I challenge you to show proof that he did it for religious reasons. On the other hand, Islamist "extremists"
DO invoke Islam and Allah when they commit their crimes and they Quote the Qur'an with real texts justifying their actions. Because of this, I prefer
to call them "Literalists" because their actions ARE literally justified by the Qur'an and Sharia. Maybe you should go to the Middle East and try
to explain to those "extremists" why they are wrong

My apologies if you'd already dealt with Timothy McVeigh but you should look into his connections with Elohim City and the Christian nuts there.

If thats not your bag, how about Eric Robert Rudolph who was also a Christian Identity nut job. He was bombing abortion clinics in the name of
Christianity. Was he a Christian terrorist?

Care to go and explain to Rudolph that he is wrong for being a christian extremist?

You might also want to read the Bible. Do you think Christians take that literally as well? If they did they would break all kinds of our laws. Does
that mean Christianity is inherently evil because the Bible calls for plucking out eyes, human sacrifice and stonings?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.